Here’s How You Can Vote for Hillary’s Indictment (and Avoid a Constitutional Crisis)

November 7, 2016

Million Americans (56% of Democrats and Republicans polled) want to see Hillary Clinton indicted for her crimes, including national security violations, perjury and making hundreds of millions by selling our government to foreigners. Many of those 182 Million Americans think she should go to jail. But what can we do? We don’t get to decide on who gets indicted.

Or do we? The answer is “Yes!”

If Hillary Clinton is elected the United States will face a constitutional crisis the likes of which we have never seen – or even imagined. If you want to have nightmares, picture any of these scenarios. As you do so, keep in mind that Clinton is facing further FBI investigation and possible prosecution on two fronts: her illegal email system, and her corrupt foundation. Either of these FBI probes could trigger one of the scenarios below.

1) Hillary is elected, but in the two and a half months before she is inaugurated she is indicted. Almost all legal scholars (except for a few Clinton friends) agree that a president-elect who is under indictment cannot take office. So Tim Kaine would be inaugurated, right? Not so. There is no authority or precedent for a vice-president-elect who has not been inaugurated to become president. In this scenario we have no president, and we have no vice-president to move up. So we are stuck with the sitting president. Would Obama say, “We have a crisis in our nation. I need to stay in office or we will end up with riots and I will have to declare martial law.” Is he the kind of person who would that? You be the judge.
2) Hillary Clinton is elected and inaugurated – and then she is indicted. She would likely be forced to step down because she would be unable to perform the duties of her office. Then Muslim sympathizer Tim Kaine would become acting president until her legal problems were over.
3) Hillary Clinton is elected and inaugurated – but she is not indicted. Her time and energy would be spent defending herself in hearings, depositions and in court. She would be much more worried about going to jail than in governing, and our nation would enter a period of non-stop crisis.
4) Hillary Clinton is elected, inaugurated, and indicted. Then she decides to pardon herself. Could she do that? She could certainly try - and might even succeed. It has never happened, although Nixon – who was in a similar situation – could have tried it. If she did, she would be a wounded chief executive with no respect and very little real power. It’s doubtful that she could pardon herself, however, based on long-standing legal principles that a person cannot act as their own judge, and that no one is above the law.
5) Hillary Clinton is elected, inaugurated, and indicted. Then she successfully pardons herself. Congress rises up in indignation and impeaches her. Sorry, that won’t work. The House determined in 1873 that no one can be impeached for crimes that took place before they took office. Bummer.
6) Hillary Clinton is elected, inaugurated, and indicted. Then she successfully pardons herself. Congress gets smart and impeaches her - not for actions she has taken as president, but for crimes she committed as secretary of state. That would be a novel legal approach that might work. But an easier way to accomplish the same purpose would be to impeach her for lying after she becomes president. As the investigations proceed, she is bound to lie to the FBI, Congress and federal investigators as she has already done. She is so practiced at lying that it has become second nature for her. She’ll slip up, and Congress can impeach her.
7) Hillary Clinton is elected, then indicted. Obama pardons her because he believes she will continue his Socialist programs and ObamaCare. Congress could still impeach her as described above. But she would not be a legitimate president, and our nation would be dragged into a four year nightmare. Even though she would have been pardoned for the specific crimes for which she was indicted, she could still be investigated for other crimes. And of course Congress would launch multiple investigations, as well.
8) THE MOST FRIGHTENING SCENARIO: A constitutional crisis refers to a situation dealing with the inability to resolve a disagreement between different branches of government. Imagine this: A court of competent jurisdiction indicts Hillary and orders her to appear in court. She invokes executive privilege and refuses to appear, because she’s too busy being president. When this contempt of court occurs, the judge issues a “bench warrant” – an order for law enforcement to compel the scofflaw to appear. Federal officers arrive at the White House to arrest her. Her Secret Service detail, which has sworn to defend her with their lives if necessary, pulls their weapons and orders the Federal Marshalls to leave. The Marshalls pull their guns and tell the Secret Service to back off, since they have a lawful federal warrant.

Although it is certainly possible, I seriously doubt the last scenario would ever occur. First, because the professional federal agents would defuse the situation and Hillary would have to go face the angry judge. Second, because if she treats her Secret Service detail the way she treated them when Bill was president, they would likely put the cuffs on her themselves. (According to several books written by former Secret Service agents, being put on her detail was considered a punishment. She called them “F***ing idiots”, ordered them around like servants, and demeaned them at every opportunity.)

So how can we vote to impeach the woman whom the majority of Americans of both parties believe is dishonest, untrustworthy, and a congenital liar? Simply vote for Trump. If she is elected, the country will suffer through four years of turmoil, unless she is impeached and removed from office. The only way to avoid this is to deny her the office she has lusted after for her entire adult life.

Some will argue that FBI Director Comey’s Nov. 6 announcement that his decision on July 5 not to prosecute Clinton over what he described as her and her staff being “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” still holds. After stating in July that he did not believe she should be prosecuted, he informed Congress on October 28 that he was reopening the investigation. His letter to Congress said that the FBI “…had recently “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the Clinton investigation.” Then came the Nov. 6 decision to close the newly reopened investigation.

The new investigation involved 650,000 emails found on a computer used by pedophile former congressman Anthony Weiner and his Muslim Brotherhood associated wife Huma Abedin. These included emails to and from Hillary Clinton during the time she was Secretary of State. Abedin has refused to answer the obvious question: “Why did you forward government emails - which by law are supposed to be kept secure – to your private Yahoo account.”

These 650,000 emails were found during an investigation of Huma’s husband sending lewd photos of himself to at least one underage girl. They were not investigating Clinton’s criminal activities, but they soon found “.gov” and “ClintonEmail.com” emails from Hillary’s private servers (there were actually several, according to the FBI). They discovered that at least several thousand of these were emails relating to Clinton’s criminal use of her private servers. They notified the FBI Director, and he notified Congress about the investigation as he had pledged to do under oath. (The Obama Justice Department tried to prevent him from informing Congress.)

The emails ending in “.gov” were from government officials, which often contain classified and top secret material. The “ClintonEmail.com” emails were from Hillary’s secret email servers that she operated in spite of federal law prohibiting them (and which Clinton herself notified all State Department employees when she took office that they could not do).

Here’s the first problem: How did the FBI – even with the help of the Justice Department – carefully review 650,000 emails? The answer is that they obviously could not. The FBI said as much when they first discovered the treasure trove of illegal emails. They said that the public should not expect any determination of the significance of these emails prior to the election, and probably not for months. And then – miraculously – 9 days later Comey states that all 650,000 had been reviewed, and Hillary would escape jail again – at least for now.

What they did in their brief “investigation” was to use a program that would isolate only emails to and from Hillary and Abedin. Any illegal emails sent to and from Abedin that did not involve Hillary were ignored. Likewise, any government emails to and from Hillary and anyone else but Abedin were not considered.

This is a serious concern, since there has been speculation that the 33,000 emails that Hillary ordered destroyed were forwarded to Abedin’s computer for safekeeping before the servers were wiped clean and then the hard drives smashed. So Hillary’s 33,000 emails could well be hidden among the 650,000 on Abedin’s machine. And the FBI’s cursory search would not bring them to light. Of course, a more thorough investigation will provide answers to these and other important questions that will determine whether Hillary goes to jail. But that won’t happen until after the election.

It’s obvious that Obama and the Justice Department bullied Comey into making the bogus pronouncement in July that allowed Hillary to keep running. Then when he notified Congress about the new evidence, he was undoubtedly threatened, which led to him backing down and shutting down the new investigation just as it was getting started.

For those who have not been following the Clinton scandals closely, here are some facts you should know before Election Day.

1) The Justice Department makes the decision on whether or not to prosecute, based on evidence provided by the FBI. The FBI NEVER makes such decisions. But Attorney General Loretta Lynch deliberately met with Bill Clinton, the husband of a woman who was under criminal investigation by the FBI. She then leaked information on that meeting, and since it was wildly improper, said she would recuse herself from the case. The legal procedure would be to hand the case over to one of her deputies. Instead, she took the unprecedented step of turning over to the FBI to make the decision on whether to prosecute. Since under the law the FBI does not have the authority to do the job of the Justice Department, Comey’s decision (which was forced on him) is improper. And the case against Hillary can still go forward if we ever get a legitimate Justice Department.
2) In his July announcement, Director Comey laid out a compelling case for the prosecution of Hillary Clinton for violations of National Security Laws. He laid out damning evidence that she had mishandled government documents, including Classified and Top Secret materials. He basically said that she had been grossly negligent. Everyone listening to him thought he would conclude with announcing her indictment. Instead, he reversed himself and announced that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to indict.
3) In excusing Clinton, Comey said there was insufficient evidence to show Clinton had malicious intent. The problem is that the law does not require intent, malicious or otherwise, to prove a federal criminal violation has occurred. The only thing the government has to prove is gross negligence, which the FBI did. Because the security of national secrets is so important, the law is very tough. (Some of the emails that were exposed, could, for instance, result in the exposure and deaths of intelligence service agents.)
4) In trumpeting the news that Comey had halted the latest probe, Clinton campaign officials said how happy they were that the investigations had been “put to rest.” But they didn’t look very happy. They know that the original email investigation is far from over. They know that once the 650,000 emails are thoroughly examined (it took months to examine a much smaller number of Hillary’s emails) more damning evidence will emerge. And they know that there are at least two ongoing investigations into the Clinton Foundation and Hillary’s criminal activities concerning it.
5) Then there is the question of Huma Abedin. She was born in the US, spent 16 years in Saudi Arabia where she was radicalized, then was hired by Hillary soon after she returned to the US. Since then she has become far closer to Hillary than anyone – including Bill. According to her staff, “Huma is never more than three feet from Hillary.” She is her closest confidant, has held top-level positions wherever Hillary goes, and will undoubtedly become Hillary’s Chief of Staff if we are cursed with her as president. On the campaign plane, she and Hillary share a private compartment while all other staffers have to stay in the back with the press. The question for Hillary is, “Why is the radical Muslim, who has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, who edited and wrote articles for a Sharia journal, so close to you, and why does she have such a high security clearance?” Why have five members of House Select Committee on Intelligence asked for an investigation into her Muslim Brotherhood ties? Why was Huma paid by BOTH the State Department and the Clinton Foundation at the same time? These are questions Hillary refuses to answer – but which you should be asking yourself. If this the kind of person we want to be closest to the Commander-in-Chief?
6) Career FBI agents are furious with their Director’s mishandling of the Clinton cases and the fact that Hillary got a different kind of “justice” than you or I would get. They are particularly incensed that she was allowed to be interviewed without being under oath (so that she could lie without fear of perjury charges) and that no recording was made of the interview.

The bottom line is that Hillary’s legal problems are far from over. She has never answered for any of these violations of the law:

1) Setting up and maintaining a private email server on which she sent government emails in order to keep her other illegal activities secret. This is a serious violation of national security laws.
2) Destroying evidence after receiving a subpoena from Congress ordering her to preserve that evidence.
3) Lying to Congress.
4) Obstructing justice.
5) Taking bribes from foreign governments and giving them favorable treatment while she was Secretary of State.
6) Refusing repeated desperate pleas from our Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, for more security prior to the Benghazi attack. Then, after refusing to send aid to Benghazi while they were being killed, lying to Congress about why four Americans died.
7) Claiming that she used only one email device, when the FBI discovered that she used 13 – and that she had them destroyed to avoid detection.
8) Claiming that she had turned over all State Department emails, when the FBI Director testified that she kept tens of thousands of them – including classified emails.

At this time the Justice Department and the FBI can’t do their jobs due to political pressure. So Hillary won’t be indicted before Election Day. But you can indict her by denying her the Oval Office – and in the process keep our nation from being mired in a constitutional crisis that could drag on for years.

Tom Barrett is the Founder and Publisher of www.ConservativeTruth.org. He has written thousands of articles that have been republished in national newspapers and on hundreds of websites, and is a frequent guest on radio and television shows. His unique viewpoint on social, moral and political issues from a Biblical worldview have resulted in invitations to speak at churches, conferences, Money Shows, colleges, and on TV (including the 700 Club). Tom is also an expert speaker and writer on the subject of Biblical Finance, & is the Founder www.ChristianFinancialConcepts.com.